Youngkin v. Hines
546 S.W.3d 675
| Tex. | 2018Background
- Dispute over title to a 45-acre portion of a 285-acre tract in Brazos County; Buetta Scott and daughter (the Scotts) sued for declaratory judgment; Bill Youngkin represented the Scotts.
- Defendant Hines, an alleged heir, claimed he paid taxes on the 45-acre subsection and had an ownership interest; during trial Youngkin recited a Rule 11 settlement on the record resolving certain interests among parties.
- After the Rule 11 recital and related transactions, Hines alleged the Scotts (with Youngkin's assistance) conveyed interests to a trustee-client (Capps) and deprived him of his expected ownership share.
- Hines sued the Scotts and Capps for fraud and statutory fraud and later added Youngkin, alleging he knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme (negotiating/reciting the Rule 11 agreement, preparing deeds, and filing suit).
- Youngkin moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and asserted attorney immunity; trial court denied dismissal, court of appeals affirmed on facts, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA applies to claims based on Youngkin's in-court statements | Hines: attorney speaking for client is not exercising personal petition/speech rights, so TCPA doesn't apply | Youngkin: reciting Rule 11 in court is a "communication in ... a judicial proceeding" under TCPA | TCPA applies; statutory definition covers statements made in judicial proceedings irrespective of constitutional analysis |
| Whether Hines met TCPA burden to show prima facie claims | Hines: alleged facts establish fraud, conspiracy, and breach claims against Youngkin | Youngkin: even if prima facie case exists, attorney-immunity bars liability | Assuming arguendo Hines met burden, Youngkin still entitled to dismissal on attorney-immunity defense |
| Whether Youngkin proved attorney-immunity defense with sufficient evidence | Hines: Youngkin offered no affidavit/evidence to meet TCPA §27.005(d) burden | Youngkin: facts (allegations and representation relationship) show conduct was within scope of representation | Court: minimal evidence was sufficient here; conduct (negotiating/reciting settlement, preparing deed, filing suit) was within scope and immunity applies |
| Award of fees and sanctions under TCPA §27.009 | Hines: not argued here | Youngkin: requests fees and sanctions following successful dismissal | Case remanded to trial court to determine attorney's fees and sanctions; Supreme Court declines to render a fee award itself |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (describing TCPA purpose and dismissal procedure)
- Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (attorney immunity: attorneys immune to nonclient claims for conduct within scope of representation)
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (statutory interpretation principles)
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (courts bound to statutory definitions when supplied)